For QT: Why is gender identity different than religion in social protocols?

submitted by divingrightintowork from (self.GCdebatesQT)

Ok trans folks, I got a question for you...

Why is gender identity different than religion? Or at least, with regards to social protocols around how you respect religious people's identities and beliefs when they're not around, vs when they are?

Like sure, 'use people's preferred pronouns' when gender people are around seems similar to not saying "jesus fucking christ," when your Christian friends are around (though I'm skeptical most people have that level of respect for their Christian friends, probably the opposite).

That said, when they're not around, who cares. How is it any different to talk about Ellen Page as Ellen Page if she's not in the same room as you, any more than it is to say "Jesus Fucking Christ," when my Christian mom isn't around? Why (and how!) does the former seem to 'hurt' and disrespect the gender person, but the former does not hurt or disrespect the religion person?

There are many other instances this applies to, but for now I'm happy to keep it to religious identity as it seems like a great dupe for gender identity - it is immaterial, unprovable, both parties often believe that "Everyone has a gender/religious soul. some people just haven't realized it yet," requires articles of faith, adherence to the ideologies can be measured by certain rituals and lifestyles, though one can "be" a gender/religious person without partaking in any of these songs and dances... they simply need to tell them they are X... and they are X.

Anyway, color me curious and ty! (I do realize not all trans people are gender ideology identitarians)

all 43 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]BiologyIsReal 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, "gender identity" sounds too much like "gendered" souls. So, I'd also ask them, if you enshrine "gender identity" into law, doesn't this break the separation between Church and State?

[–]MarkTwainiac 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The issue that's causing so much trouble isn't simply that the Church of Genderology is similar to a fundamentalist religions, though it is in numerous ways.

The real problem is that those who believe in/belong to the Church of Genderology are behaving as if their fanciful faith has been established as the official state religion in countries like the US, Canada, the UK, Ireland, Scandinavia, Australia, New Zealand and many other places. The adherents of the Church of Genderology and all their allies in the establishment act as though the Western world now is subject to the rule of an authoritarian religious tyranny similar to the Shia Islamic theocracy instituted in Iran in 1979 - a totalitarian state where the Genderists are the supreme rulers and no one else gets a say: No debate!

As a result, the entire population of the Western world is now expected to accept without question all the preposterous claims and tenets of the Church of Genderology, read its sacred texts & regard them as divine truth, gullibly swallow its origin stories, unfailingly obey its commandments, venerate its clergy, religiously follow its rituals, enthusiastically participate in its liturgy, use its arcane & incoherent terminology, honor its holy days, stand in awe of its saints, kowtow to its sacred caste, worship at its altar and partake of its sacraments.

If we don't do all these things, and exactly in the way the Genderologists dictate, then after death we'll be sent to the underworld to suffer eternal damnation and unspeakable horrors forevermore - and until then, the CoG will make our lives hell on earth, particularly if our sex is female and we have the temerity to respond to the mantra "trans rights are human rights" by pointing out that girls & women have some human rights too.

Just as the Genderologists have gone out of their way to craft a theology that is perhaps the most misogynistic in all history, they've also taken great care to insure that the new state religion we are being expected to follow is a particularly strict and cruel one. Due to the impossible demands it makes, demands that change on a frequent basis without public notice, it's inevitable that sooner or later - most likely sooner - each one of us will fall short, slip up and commit a heinous sin like misgendering a Gregor Murray, deadnaming a Caitlyn Jenner or Chuck Clymer, or making reference to "concerns," "safety" or "biological sex," all of which have now been deemed "transphobic dogwhistles" and "hate speech." And when we do commit sin as is bound to happen, each one of us will find there is no forgiveness, no redemption, no way to "do better" and escape pillorying, shunning and exile. Not for us, coz we are apparently heretics, blasphemers and evil to our core.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 7 fun1 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 7 fun -  (3 children)

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EveryoneIsJesusInPurgatory

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That TV Tropes entry is written in gibberish. But the gist of it I was able to glean is incredibly dumb. The idea that "everyone is Jesus in purgatory" makes no sense at all coz Jesus didn't go to purgatory. Purgatory and Jesus don't really belong in the same sentence.

Purgatory is the place that RC theology says the souls of people are sent to if they are too sinful for heaven but not so sinful as to deserve damnation in hell. Basically, purgatory is the big waiting room in the sky where your sins are expiated by enduring a partially hellish experience for some of the hereafter rather than the whole shebang.

When I was a child in Catholic school decades ago, I was taught that rather than your whole body being set on fire for all eternity like in hell, in purgatory only your hands and arms to your shoulders and your legs to just above the knee will be on fire - and it will only be for a couple of million years as opposed to forever. 😱

But Jesus didn't need to go to purgatory coz he'd already done enough suffering on earth - so much suffering, the story goes, that he made up for the rest of humanity's sins, or for original sin (it's never been clear to me which sins they meant). The point is, Jesus got to skip purgatory and take the express elevator to heaven not just coz he was the son of god/god himself, but because he was crucified - and prior to his crucifixion he was put through the hell of imprisonment, torture, public shaming, and the hellish long walk to Calvary wearing a crown of thorns and lugging the cross he'd soon be nailed to whilst some in the crowds jeered and spit and the Roman soldiers whipped and kicked him each time he fell.

So an image of Jesus in purgatory does not compute. "Everyone is Jesus in the Judean desert" might work, though. Ditto Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

I believe its referring to Jesus descent into the underworld:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrowing_of_Hell

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So why is it called "Everyone Is Jesus in Purgatory"? Purgatory isn't hell.

Also, the "Harrowing in Hell" story is widely disputed and not taught by many Christian churches. The RCC of my youth didn't teach it. The early NT texts said that in between his death and resurrection, Jesus went to Hades. Hades means

the underworld; the abode of the spirits of the dead (Oxford).

Hades isn't hell. Hell is in Hades, but not all Hades is hell. Like Paris is in France but not all of France is Paris.

The confusion between hell and Hades seems to have come from poor translations of the early New Testament texts from Greek into other languages. https://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/did-jesus-go-to-hell-faq.htm

Plus, even if the harrowing of hell story is taken at face value, by its own account Jesus didn't suffer when he supposedly went to hell - he went there to preach, save souls, say hello and stick it to the devil (his purported doings there vary from account to account).

BTW, some early Christian theologians suggested that during his time in the underworld before his resurrection and ascent into heaven, Jesus did actually visit purgatory - and some say he visited limbo (the place where it used to be said that unbaptised babies went after death). But still, that doesn't fit with the mostly incoherent TV tropes writeup you linked to coz: a) the idea that J went to purgatory is very obscure, & little known, even amongst devout Christians with a bent for theological arcana; b) if he went to purgatory, Jesus still wouldn't have suffered there; and c) Hollywood TV writers tend not to be very good when it comes to grasping the nuances of Christian theology, as evidenced by their constant mis-portrayal of the meaning of the "immaculate conception," which they erroneously conflate with the doctrine of the virgin birth.

That TV trope would be far better summed up by calling it "Everybody Is Jesus" or "Everybody Is Jesus on the Cross." Coz pretty much everyone has a basic grasp of the the Jesus crucifixion story & grasps cross imagery. Which IIRC, E.M. Forster famously made fun of in his essay "My Wood."

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

This is a great question and I think it’s really interesting that it’s been ten hours as I type this and no qt answered.

So I’ll answer- it’s not different. It’s the exact same concept. And I think they know that, which may be why this went unanswered all day.

[–]divingrightintowork[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Aww I've missed you! ❤️

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I’ve missed you! I was so happy to see you’d posted :)

[–]divingrightintowork[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'll check the other posts and see if I have anything to share?

[–]adungitit 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There is only a tiny number of people here, and even back on Reddit there were barely any QT answering.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ok, we would still get a few answers, vs not getting any. We still do at least get a few answers most of the time, unless it’s a subject they can’t dance around, like this one. That was my point.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

I don't think religion can be dismissed that easily. It's likely appeared from evolutionary pressures. It serves a purpose. Societies without religion have secular forms that serve a very similar purpose. It's just like refined aspects of religion.

Secondly although religions appear very differently across the world, all known societies have social gender. They all have majority gender conforming societies with gender variant minorities. I'd expect they also link same sex attraction to gender non conformity.

This is not a specific justification of all trans politics but that "gender" can't be abolished, just as all religious like forms can't be abolished.

[–]MarkTwainiac 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think religion can be dismissed that easily.

Huh? How is noting the similarities between gender ideology and religion - and the different social protocols around Genderology compared to other religions in plural societies today - dismissing religion? No one here has dismissed religion. We've made observations about it. Seems to me observing religions is the opposite of dismissing 'em.

Nor has anyone said religions should "be abolished" LOL. You're the only one who's used such lingo and brought up that idea.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

There seems to be a drastic difference in what the trans community expects/demands from the rest of society and how other cultures who have “gender variant minorities” include them. Those cultures regularly ask not to be compared to trans people and not to be used as a reference/example by trans people (not at all saying you’re doing this, just responding because you made an interesting point).

Trans ideology doesn’t have to be abolished, it just needs to be something that nobody has to participate in or be effected by unless they willingly choose to be. We shouldn’t force any ideology on people who don’t believe in it, and that’s exactly what’s happening now with the trans community (obligatory not all trans people).

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

But I think either way trans or not trans politics does affect society. There isn't an easy way to opt out of either.

Then the idea of gender abolition would change all of society, in theory.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I’m not pushing for abolishing anything, trans people aren’t even using gender properly lol. The things trans people are pushing for are invasive and disruptive of other people’s rights, that’s not okay at all. Trans people should be free to believe whatever they want, even free to ask people to call them whatever they prefer- they shouldn’t be allowed to do most of what is happening today. I understand politics affect society, I’m saying that what is being forced and pushed into society is wrong, and particularly pushing an ideology based on wishful thinking and denial of fact makes it 1000x more wrong

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

gender abolition would change all of society, in theory.

I don't think anyone "gender critical" thinks the abolition of the sex stereotypes and other sexist ideas and beliefs that constitute "gender" is a realistic or achievable end goal. Or, for that matter, even a desirable one. We are arguing against forcing everyone in society to have to accept and adhere to the strict, deeply regressive and sexist sex stereotypes that genderists hold dear. And we are against the basic tenet of Genderology which says that whether a human being is male or female, boy or girl, man or woman, is not determined by the person's biology, but by his or her level of perceived "masculinity" or "femininity" and which - if any - sex stereotypes he or she hews to and prefers.

Most people who are "gender critical" are not saying that genderists should not be allowed to have their sexist beliefs and to cleave to sexist sex stereotypes and judge themselves and others by sexist standards. We just don't think their sexist beliefs, stereotypes and standards should be imposed on all of society, forced down children's throats and made into the de facto state religion that everyone is expected to follow and no one is allowed to challenge.

[–]divingrightintowork[S] 7 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 5 fun -  (6 children)

bravo - I've been saying that I'm not really GC or TRA, but I'm a liberalist... and it's the negative rights of GC/RF aligned people that are being most trampled right now, whereas TRAs are demanding highly undue positive "rights" which are really more like privileges.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (5 children)

I'm a liberalist

Do you have any links to a definition?

Does this mean you do or don't identify as a feminist? What have you got against gender critical feminism?

[–]divingrightintowork[S] 5 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 6 fun -  (4 children)

Sure! At a glance this seems to be an ok description of it - https://www.liberalcurrents.com/liberalism-article-paul-crider/ Current liberalists I enjoy are people like Helen Pluckrose, Jonathan Haidt, Greg Lukianoff, Jonathan Rauch... The ACLU, circa 1978 was a liberal (as in liberalist) institution. Let me know if this helps. The word feminist is too meaningless to really mean much to me at this point, but if you can tell me what it means to you, I Can tell you if I'm a feminist by your definition :)

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (3 children)

OK but that's still quite general in regard to gender or feminism.

Obviously I understand liberal and feminism can mean different things. I'd see you cannot identify as a liberal feminist because of it's common relationship to trans politics.

But why not radical feminist?

How essentialist are you?

[–]divingrightintowork[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Uh probably not very essentialist, but what does essential mean to you? I'm also not really much of a radical. I guess I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.... I believe myself to follow the values of liberalism, probably with a leftist bent. I don't see why I couldn't be a liberal feminist, which I would consider different than a "Libfem," or I suppose "Liberal Feminist." I don't reject a label just because others use it poorly or incoherently. I'm just not sure if there's a definition of feminism that is meaningful and relatable enough to attach to myself. I don't really see the point or purpose.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Uh probably not very essentialist, but what does essential mean to you?

Anything from very bad essentialism, "man hunts" "woman cooks" to some very mild things, "men and women have slightly different behavioural biases on a couple traits."

Usually connected to evolutionary ideas which are unpopular in progressive circles.

A classic essentialist behaviour is criminality. Men appear far more criminal than women. Across all cultures. Some might say it's a product of dimorphism but I think it seems more basic.

Neither sex wants to "own" that but it might be directly correlated with other behaviours with more positive reputations, such as risk taking.

Is the trans element the only aspect of "liberal feminism" you object to? I think the other topics would be "sex positivity," porn, bdsm, sex work, gay rights. I'd say radical feminism would object to marriage and most gender norms.

We do probably need better political labels.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 5 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 6 fun -  (4 children)

I don't think anyone "gender critical" thinks the abolition of the sex stereotypes and other sexist ideas and beliefs that constitute "gender" is a realistic or achievable end goal. Or, for that matter, even a desirable one.

I'm confused by this because "abolish gender" is practically the gender critical slogan.

How could radical feminists see the abolition of the "sex stereotypes and other sexist ideas" as undesirable?

We are arguing against forcing everyone in society to have to accept and adhere to the strict, deeply regressive and sexist sex stereotypes that genderists hold dear.

You don't want everyone in society to have to accept and adhere to strict, deeply regressive and sexist sex stereotypes that would be undesirable to abolish?

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'm confused by this because "abolish gender" is practically the gender critical slogan.

Really? Then why is it called "gender critical" rather than "gender abolitionist"? I guess I should have been more precise and said that I don't think any of the "gender critical" people I know and those who post here would say abolition is a realistic, achievable or desirable end goal.

In answer to your question: I think a society without strict, deeply regressive sex stereotypes would be a good thing - but I don't believe in getting there by trying to abolish them or through abolition. Abolish means to

formally put an end to (a system, practice, or institution).

Abolition means

the action or an act of abolishing a system, practice, or institution.

Both words come from the Latin word meaning to destroy.

In my view, abolition would mean action from a government or another authority (like a religious leader issuing a fatwa or papal edict) to make something illegal. With practices like slavery, child labor, apartheid, criminalization of homosexual sex, I think abolition can work and has worked.

But sex stereotypes are ideas that exist in people's heads and which speak to something in their hearts. IMO, it would be a very bad move for any government or other authority to pass measures meant to make it illegal for people to have particular thoughts, feelings and ideas. And doing so would inevitably backfire. Coz nothing is more ineluctably alluring than that which is forbidden.

I think anti-discrimination laws and other measures can go - and have gone - a long way towards getting rid of practices based on rigid, regressive sexist sex stereotypes. For example, it used to be that it was legal to fire women from their jobs once they married or got pregnant, to not allow women to apply for certain jobs, to limit the number of women allowed in certain professions or to bar them entirely, and to refuse to provide bank loans, mortgages and credit cards to women unless they had male guarantors co-sign for them. Making those practices illegal helped to eliminate them. However, I think it would be foolish and way, way too authoritarian to try to make it illegal for anyone to have any of the ideas used to justify and rationalize such practices - such as married women & moms shouldn't work outside the home, women aren't equipped to be firefighters or stevedores, women aren't suited to surgery or engineering, women can't handle or understand money. I think those ideas are silly, insulting and can be harmful if taught to children and turned into practice - so I think it's reasonable to bar them from being taught in public schools and to be used as the basis for public policies. But I don't think it's the place of government - or people who share my views - to tell adults they can't believe in those ideas, that they can't express those ideas, and that they're not allowed to communicate those ideas to their own kids.

Moreover, I'm keenly aware that the way people in the past made the greatest social progress in women's rights, civil rights and gay rights was by making arguments - not by decreeing that sexism, racism and homophobia are now verboten or illegal. And I'm also aware that radical efforts "to destroy" what exists in one fell swoop in an effort to create an ideal society don't work. Sometimes they have tragic and truly horrific consequences, as in the USSR, the Third Reich, the Iron Curtain, North Korea, China, Chile and Cambodia in the 1970s. And even when extreme measures like diktats, revolutions and warfare work, they usually only go so far. In the US, the Emancipation Proclamation, Civil War and a constitutional amendment were effective in putting an end to (most) slavery, but eliminating the ideas that led to slavery, justified it and allowed it to continue is another matter for the much longer haul.

In short, my view is that any society where certain ideas are not allowed to be thought is a tyranny. I have always objected to strict, deeply regressive and sexist sex stereotypes and made efforts in a variety of ways towards reducing, eliminating and laughing at them. But I don't think it's desirable to attempt to abolish them because doing so would mean taking measures to control what other people are allowed to think, feel and dream about. Enough societies have tried that sort of thing already, and it has never worked out well.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Really? Then why is it called "gender critical" rather than "gender abolitionist"?

https://wildwomynworkshop.com/store/badges/badges-25-mm/abolish-gender-25mm-feminist-button-badge/

Its not like I made it up. It's common position from gc. However I do see descent on it and there are a range of opinions in gc. It would be nice to formalise that in order to understand the arguments.

In short, my view is that any society where certain ideas are not allowed to be thought is a tyranny. I have always objected to strict, deeply regressive and sexist sex stereotypes and made efforts in a variety of ways towards reducing, eliminating and laughing at them. But I don't think it's desirable to attempt to abolish them because doing so would mean taking measures to control what other people are allowed to think, feel and dream about. Enough societies have tried that sort of thing already, and it has never worked out well.

OK thanks I think I get the idea now.

Government laws and interventions on gender to force it would be bad and coercive.

But leaving the state aside I'm still not clear on what your preference is.

That there would be no "stereotypes" ?

I have to be honest a lot of this seems like a logic trap, such that male stereotypes are viewed as good unless it's a toxic male and all female stereotypes are bad unless its the right kind of woman.

Stereotypes seems like another term for gender norms. Surely they change, but at its heart society doesn't seem to really want to get rid of them all. It might want "freedom" but there are enough biases remaining to count as soft social enforcement. That can come from the majority of people being conforming, even if they are liberal on non conformists.

Likewise most people opposed to trans ideology don't actually want a world without social gender, most of the behavioural aspects of gender.

Which takes us back to the question of what gc actually wants because this isn't all about trans people.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Its not like I made it up. It's common position from gc.

As proof you link to a website of selling handmade buttons, one of which says "abolish gender."

I have nothing to do with that website. I don't agree with every idea the woman who owns & runs it has put on her buttons. I don't agree with how she chooses to spell the word woman, in fact.

However I do see descent on it and there are a range of opinions in gc. It would be nice to formalise that in order to understand the arguments.

I dunno who this "gc" is. Lots of diverse people criticize, challenge and oppose sexism and sex stereotypes. We are not a hive mind. If you want to "formalize" what you think the "gc" view is, have at it. Me, I'm not interested.

I have to be honest a lot of this seems like a logic trap, such that male stereotypes are viewed as good unless it's a toxic male and all female stereotypes are bad unless its the right kind of woman.

WTF? Talk about titling at windmills. You're shadow boxing with some figment of your imagination that has nothing to do with me or anything I've said. The stereotypes "toxic male" and "right kind of woman" are not ones to which I ascribe. You should have stopped with

OK thanks I think I get the idea now.

Government laws and interventions on gender to force it would be bad and coercive.

The remainder of your post is just you making unsubstantiated speculations in which you attribute to me views that I have not expressed, do not hold and have not intimated that I might hold.

You seem to have issues with reading comprehension. When posters very clearly say one thing, you respond as though we've actually said something quite different. Reminds me of the famous Cathy Newman tactic: what you really seem to be saying is... It's as if your go-to stance is to conclude that what others say can't really be what we actually mean, but you know what we really mean coz of some magical powers of clairvoyance.

So to reiterate:

Making observations about religions is not the same as dismissing religions.

Being critical of sexism and sexist sex stereotypes is not the same as advocating for authoritarian measures attempting to abolish them.

I am not an authoritarian or utopian. I have no interest in trying to design or dream up what I think an ideal society might be so that I can try to impose it on others and the world by fiat. Anyone with LT experience in politics and social progress in the real world knows the advantages of incrementalism. Also, the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Which takes us back to the question of what gc actually wants because this isn't all about trans people.

No, this takes me to the end of the road in our exchange. I believe you are not engaging in good faith.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Cathy Newman tactic

To be honest I didn't find Cathy Newman's tactic wrong.

To me it's saying "This is how the views can be interpreted. Here is the model they are being interpreted as by others. Over to you point how they're understanding is wrong." It's just part of debate. Giving a viewpoint on a topic and asking for a response.

[–]adungitit 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

lol men would claim that a stain on the carpet was made by evolutionary pressures if it somehow made their dicks feel better.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 2 insightful - 8 fun2 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 8 fun -  (5 children)

Gender is a psychological sense of being male, female, both or neither. Religion is the belief and worship of a god.

[–]MarkTwainiac 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Gender is a psychological sense of being male, female, both or neither.

That's the definition of gender identity, not gender.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender%20identity

https://www.hrc.org/resources/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-terminology-and-definitions

https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/917990-overview

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/help-advice/faqs-and-glossary/glossary-terms#f

https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexuality-definitions.pdf

Gender refers to the attitudes, feelings and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person's biological sex. Behavior that is compatible with cultural expectations is referred to as gender‐normative; behaviors that are viewed as incompatible with these expectations constitute gender non‐conformity

https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexuality-definitions.pdf

Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time.

Gender is hierarchical and produces inequalities that intersect with other social and economic inequalities. Gender-based discrimination intersects with other factors of discrimination, such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability, age, geographic location, gender identity and sexual orientation, among others. This is referred to as intersectionality.

Gender interacts with but is different from sex, which refers to the different biological and physiological characteristics of females, males and intersex persons, such as chromosomes, hormones and reproductive organs. Gender and sex are related to but different from gender identity. Gender identity refers to a person’s deeply felt, internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond to the person’s physiology or designated sex at birth.

https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1

Religion is the belief and worship of a god.

That's only one kind of religion - monotheism. Many religions over the course of history have been polytheistic. In fact, until relatively recently in history when the Abrahamic religions arose & have come to be such major forces, polytheist religions predominated in much of the world over the span of time.

[–]BiologyIsReal 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Gender is a psychological sense of being male, female, both or neither.

So, what makes you feel you're male, female, both or neither? I'm a woman and I've no idea what is feeling like a woman.

Religion is the belief and worship of a god.

Not all religions have a god to worship. Buddhism is one example.

https://www.history.com/topics/religion/buddhism

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I thought there was a longstanding debate over whether Buddhism is a religion, with many Buddhists and non-Buddhists having different views on the matter.

https://www.pbs.org/thebuddha/blog/2010/may/6/buddhism-religion-gary-gach/

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/is-buddhism-a-philosophy-_b_10176992

[–]BiologyIsReal 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Fair enough, I admit I don't know much about religion, philosophy, or buddhism. Though, I view buddhism as a religion because it includes some supernatural elements like rebirth.

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I have no opinion on the matter personally. It's just that I know there's been a long-running debate both within Buddhist circles and amongst others who like to bat around issues concerning theology & philosophy.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (5 children)

Are you serious? Okay...

Religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods

Gender Identity: an individuals notion of their gender group orientation/membership.

These things are different and refer to different things. Even if GI doesn’t biologically exist, that wouldn’t qualify it as a religion anymore than subscribing to a magazine would qualify as a religion.

[–]divingrightintowork[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You seem to be misreading / missing the question and the emphasis that it is about social protocols around people with religious identities vs people with gender identities?

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (3 children)

Oh, then thats all social protocols. They’re all subjective and enforced on people.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Oh, then thats all social protocols. They’re all subjective and enforced on people.

But social protocols are not all enforced on people to the same extent with the same measures, and particularly not across all cultures and over time.

In many countries today, it's fine to insult the heads of state of that nation and other nations. But in other countries, it's a criminal offense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se-majest%C3%A9

Social protocols around religion vary considerably even in the countries of the secular West. In the West, you can insult Jesus, Moses and "god himself" without negative repercussions. Even Christians frequently "take the name of god in vain" by using common phrases such as "Good lord," "god damn," "Jesus, Mary and Joseph," and "Jesus fucking Christ." But draw a picture of Mohammed, insult the Koran, or depict Islam in what some Muslims consider a negative light, and even in "progressive" and plural places like France, the Netherlands and the UK, you're likely to get shot dead, stabbed to death or beheaded for it.

The social protocols in force in much of the Western world today say it's perfectly acceptable for trans-identified males to call women "cxnts," "bxtches," "menstruators" and "vagina havers," and it's fine for them to tell us to "choke to death" on "girl cock" and "lady dick" and to threaten us with rape, but it's completely unacceptable - indeed, it's hateful and violent - for women to call them men or males, to mention their former names, to point out that they have dicks and balls, and that their behavior is misogynistic and comes off as "stereotypically male." Which puts the lie to the claim that social protocols are all enforced on people in exactly the same to the same extent.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

I believe that by and large both situations would be seen as unacceptable. There is far more negativity coming from the anti-trans side especially with the right wing surging and the alliances between them and some prominent gender crits.

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But trans activists and their allies concentrate their abuse on women - particularly women who have historically been left wing, at the vanguard of "progressivism" and who've long advocated tolerance for everyone, and do not commit or promote physical violence. Such as JK Rowling. They don't go after right wing men the way they go after liberal women. Moreover, TRAs blame women who've never threatened, called for or committed a single act of violence against trans people (or anyone else) for the violence some trans have experienced, even though it's all committed by men.

Finally, trans activists and other genderists have been behaving in extremely abusive ways towards feminists for many, many years - decades even. Their abusiveness towards feminists and other women who don't agree that men can become women became standard practice long before some feminists participated in any "hands across the aisle" activities with women and some men on the right.

The TRA now known as Dana Rivers killed Patricia Wright and Charlotte Reed, a married lesbian couple, and Toto Diambu (known as Benny Diambu-Wright), their 19-year-old son, in 2016, well before some feminists appeared on or attended a panel at the Heritage Foundation. Previously, Rivers had been active in “Camp Trans,” a many-years long campaign of male TRAs against the rights of lesbians to hold the women-only annual festival called “Michfest” on private land. The TRAs succeeded in getting Michfest shut down in 2015. The women Rivers murdered were regular attendees at Michfest.

TRAs' concerted campaign of IRL & online abuse, harassment, stalking & doxxing of women like Cathy Brennan & Elizabeth Hungerford has been going on since at least 2011.